Where is the US economy headed?

hbg, I highly recommend staying away from the US dollar, and invest in Canadian bonds or the Euro. Even the English pound has more stability and staying power.

Most people don't realize it yet, but the US dollar's value has lost more value when the US national debt continued to rise under Bush.

Our economy is transforming into a service economy; there's no way a service economy can back up all the US currency floating in this world; especially the US bonds being held by Japan and China, while our balance of payments continues its upward trend.

Only air is holding up our currency. (A lot of BS called faith.)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I'm not whining for me! I've been retired since 1998, and all I do now is world travel (8 trips last year, and seven planned for this year). It's about our children, our grandchildren and the rest of America that are being put into jeopardy of living the kind of lifestyle we enjoyed during my generation, because Bush has trashed our economy. We're one of the lucky ones, because we saved and our investments have done well. BTW, our savings is multiples of the average American family, and our investment returns is greater than the average income in San Jose, CA (one of the highest in the country), and we don't have a mortgage or car payments; we're quite comfortable, thank you.

Many of us have provided you with facts about our economy, but you have insisted on attempting to paint a pretty picture when more Americans are falling into poverty and losing their health insurance. You refuse to see the effects of this economy on more Americans, but that's because you are "deaf and dumb" to the facts readily available on the internet - and on this thread. That you don't care that more Americans are falling into poverty with higher debt and lower savings rates is beyond comprehension and common sense. You also lack compassion for those suffering within our damaged economy. Your blindness to the realities is pathetic.

cicerone, I am very happy for you. You sound much better off than me, so if you are not whinin for yourself, but for people worse off than you, count me out, you don't need to whine for me. I also know people below the poverty line, and they aren't whinin for themselves. They consider themselves to be living pretty well.

cicerone, you don't seem to want to address the points I have made about lower income people receiving huge tax refunds. You accuse Bush of giving tax breaks only for the rich, yet when I point out huge tax refunds to people that do not even pay any income tax, you ignore it as if I did not even mention it.

Your 7 and 8 world trips, don't get me wrong, I am happy for you, but some people would be very very concerned about your carbon footprint, namely Mr. Gore. Have you purchased any offsets to make sure you are environmentally sensitive to saving the planet?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, I'm not whining for me! I've been retired since 1998, and all I do now is world travel (8 trips last year, and seven planned for this year). It's about our children, our grandchildren and the rest of America that are being put into jeopardy of living the kind of lifestyle we enjoyed during my generation, because Bush has trashed our economy. We're one of the lucky ones, because we saved and our investments have done well. BTW, our savings is multiples of the average American family, and our investment returns is greater than the average income in San Jose, CA (one of the highest in the country), and we don't have a mortgage or car payments; we're quite comfortable, thank you.

Many of us have provided you with facts about our economy, but you have insisted on attempting to paint a pretty picture when more Americans are falling into poverty and losing their health insurance. You refuse to see the effects of this economy on more Americans, but that's because you are "deaf and dumb" to the facts readily available on the internet - and on this thread. That you don't care that more Americans are falling into poverty with higher debt and lower savings rates is beyond comprehension and common sense. You also lack compassion for those suffering within our damaged economy. Your blindness to the realities is pathetic.

cicerone, I am very happy for you. You sound much better off than me, so if you are not whinin for yourself, but for people worse off than you, count me out, you don't need to whine for me. I also know people below the poverty line, and they aren't whinin for themselves. They consider themselves to be living pretty well.

cicerone, you don't seem to want to address the points I have made about lower income people receiving huge tax refunds. You accuse Bush of giving tax breaks only for the rich, yet when I point out huge tax refunds to people that do not even pay any income tax, you ignore it as if I did not even mention it.

Your 7 and 8 world trips, don't get me wrong, I am happy for you, but some people would be very very concerned about your carbon footprint, namely Mr. Gore. Have you purchased any offsets to make sure you are environmentally sensitive to saving the planet?

I purchased 200 carbon offsets this month FOR CI. They are called Trees and they are now planted on a nice hill near Berkeley, thanks to last weekend's work.

The whole 'carbon offset' thing is great for businesses, stupid for people. Feel bad? Plant a tree!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Mr Gore is a hypocrite. His homes (yes, plaural) uses more energy in one day than most families uses in a year.

During my travels, I help the economies of many countries, and provide jobs to many. Many third world countries depend on tourism as their major economy.

If you learned anything, it's not much.

0 Replies

Wise gus wrote about okie on another thread: You obviously have no clue as to what Mr. Wilson does for a living or what you are talking about in general.

I was just putting out feelers.

Exactly my sentiment about okie.

0 Replies

From the NY Times:

March 11, 2007
News Analysis
Crisis Looms in Market for Mortgages
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
On March 1, a Wall Street analyst at Bear Stearns wrote an upbeat report on a company that specializes in making mortgages to cash-poor homebuyers. The company, New Century Financial, had already disclosed that a growing number of borrowers were defaulting, and its stock, at around $15, had lost half its value in three weeks.

The increase in home ownership doesn't mean much when the buyers default on their loans at much higher rates.

0 Replies

[

Quote:

I highly recommend staying away from the US dollar.
Only air is holding up our currency.

I agree, cicerone. I recall reading the other day (perhaps it was here but perhaps not - meaning I can't cite the source right now) that the Chinese government has moved the decision making for running their vast reserve of foreign currency investments from the Central Bank to another body with the objective of increasing the return on their investments in foreign securities. I doubt that that would mean they would sell their bonds and bills, but they could certainly stop buying them.

That would not be good for us as we rely on other folks to buy the iou's we keep tossing on the table.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The whole 'carbon offset' thing is great for businesses, stupid for people. Feel bad? Plant a tree!

Cycloptichorn

The carbon offset thing is not the best solution. The problem is that we in this country and our fellow human inhabitants around the world can't agree on whether global warming exists or what should be done if indeed it is a problem. Developing countries fault the developed countries for wanting to change standards that would prevent them from getting out from their impoverishment while leaving the rich countries rich. And no US politician is going to risk political suicide by advocating a two or three dollar increase in the gas tax.

My first exposure to this type of thing involved taxi licenses in NYC. The city mandated that they would issue one license for (say) every 500 residents. This would presumably ensure that there were enough cabs to service the public but not so many that none of the drivers could make a living. If you wanted to drive a cab, you had to buy one of the existing licenses on the open market.

That is sort of what is going on in the carbon offset arena. A company that is relatively efficient in its pollution control efforts can sell their license to send up so much pollution to a company that is less efficient.

In theory, I think, this encourages all producers to become more efficient.

And, finally, again in theory, someone in NYC could go into the open market and buy and then retire taxi licenses. This would force residents to take mass transit. Similarly, individuals could go into the market and buy and retire pollution rights. The problem is that lobbyists would scream and plead (or whatever else they do) with the politicians in NYC to change the rules and issue, say, one license for every 400 residents.

0 Replies

Micro control of anything in attempts to limit CO2 output isn't going to improve anything. A $3/gallon tax increase is a good start. That will force most people to buy fuel efficient cars like they have in most parts of the world. ITMT, local, state and national governments need to improve public transportation. Other solutions will not work.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Micro control of anything in attempts to limit CO2 output isn't going to improve anything. A $3/gallon tax increase is a good start. That will force most people to buy fuel efficient cars like they have in most parts of the world. ITMT, local, state and national governments need to improve public transportation. Other solutions will not work.

Remember the auto is necessary to get to work in many parts of this nation. Your 3 dollar a gallon tax would take food off the table of those who could least afford it.

PS. If you have no use for the dollars you seem to think have little value. I will send you an address to send them to. Laughing

0 Replies

That's the reason why the government needs to improve public transportation. Many large cities in the US and around the world have very good public transportation systems that reduces the need to drive to work. Those who must drive to work can be provided with income tax credits. But something on the macro level must be done to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason why the government needs to improve public transportation. Many large cities in the US and around the world have very good public transportation systems that reduces the need to drive to work. Those who must drive to work can be provided with income tax credits. But something on the macro level must be done to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

CI

You seem to forget that this nation is not all large cities. In fact there is very little or no public transportation in many areas of this nation. Tqax ceredits would be a beaucratic nightmare. In addition giving a tax credit would not stop the bleeding for people who must pay their bills now.

0 Replies

Have you ever been to Europe? Have you ever used the trains iin Europe?

0 Replies

CI
Yes, and thankfully this not Europe. In any event we have do what workable in the US. Europe be damned.

0 Replies

This is not Europe, but their public transportation system are steps ahead of the US.

No overhaul of any transportation needs are going to satisfy 100% of the people.

There will always be need for cars - whether for work or pleasure, but a solution is needed none-the-less.

What are your suggestions?

0 Replies

I will suggest what I have many times previously. Have a Manhattan type effort, as was done for atomic energy, to develope alternate energy sources. Convert talk into action. In addition upgrade the auto CAFE standards and make more and better use of nuclear energy. I would also limit the use of SUV's to need or at least add a heavy tax on those who register them.

0 Replies

The "silver bullet" plan, au. I don't think that will work.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

The "silver bullet" plan, au. I don't think that will work.

Maybe not but it is better than the IED plan we have now.

0 Replies

IED? What does that stand for?

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

IED? What does that stand for?

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) / Booby Traps

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know